EXPOSED | CBC News | Feds revamp stance on idling after meeting with drive-thru group

Feds revamp stance on idling after meeting with drive-thru group
Monday, August 11, 2008
CBC News
A federal government website that highlights the negative health and environmental effects of idling your engine has revamped its message after meeting with a group representing drive-thru restaurants.
‘It’s gonna make it harder for every city politician to make the argument that we need to have restrictive legislation on idling.’— Ottawa Coun. Clive Doucet
The “Idle-Free Zone,” a website managed by Natural Resources Canada’s office of energy efficiency, was removed for review following a meeting with the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. A revised version was posted five months later, on July 22, that:
Advises drivers to shut off their engines after 60 seconds of idling; the previous version advocated turning engines off after 10 seconds.
Does not refer to 5,000 premature deaths annually in Canada linked to air pollution, as the previous version did, and no longer includes posters bearing images such as a girl choking and slogans such as “Idling is killing our environment.”
The website says its purpose is to help communities and environmental groups stop engine idling.
Carol Buckley, director general of the office of energy efficiency, confirmed that the restaurant association met with Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn on Feb. 7.
According to Lunn’s spokeswoman, Louise Girouard, no one from the office of energy efficiency attended the meeting. Girouard confirmed that an e-mail was sent from Lunn’s office on Feb. 8 asking the site to be taken down.
Buckley said the site was temporarily removed because the office didn’t want to leave any misleading information online while it was being revised.
“We wanted to make sure that the website reflected all of the latest data and information that was available about this topic,” she said, adding that in the end the changes were “not really significant.”
The change to the recommended amount of idling time was made because of access to new research taking into account the wear and tear on a car’s battery and starter caused by shutting off and restarting the engine, she said. Previously, the site said such wear and tear was minimal.
The new site now also refers readers to Health Canada instead of detailing the health impacts of idling because Natural Resources felt that wasn’t really their jurisdiction and they wanted to focus on the effects on climate change, Buckley added.
“I think the emphasis in the earlier text was a little strong. Today’s vehicles are more efficient when it comes to smog emissions,” she said.
Site ‘lacks balance': restaurant group
Joyce Reynolds, executive vice-president for government affairs for the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, said the group corresponded with a number of government officials at various levels about the website, which was used by many municipalities to develop their own anti-idling bylaws.
‘What I would like to see is that Natural Resources Canada put the same amount of emphasis on these other driving behaviours that they do on idling.’— Joyce Reynolds, Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association
“Our concern is that municipal decision-making must be based on facts and scientific evidence,” she said. “And we were seeing some municipalities that were focusing on the health impacts of idling based on information that was incorrect and misleading.”
The association argues Natural Resources Canada didn’t put enough weight on pollution caused by a puff of contaminants produced when an engine is restarted after being shut down.
Reynolds said some of that misleading information on the “Idle-Free Zone” site has now been corrected, but the site still “lacks balance.”
In particular, she said, it doesn’t deal with other driving behaviours that cause greenhouse gas and pollution emissions, such as excessive speeding, rapid acceleration and poor vehicle maintenance.
“What I would like to see is that Natural Resources Canada put the same amount of emphasis on these other driving behaviours that they do on idling,” Reynolds said.
With regards to idling, the changes to the site will have an impact on municipalities, Ottawa city Coun. Clive Doucet said.
“It’s gonna make it harder for every city politician to make the argument that we need to have restrictive legislation on idling. It’s not good news for cities anywhere,” said Doucet, who pushed hard for an anti-idling bylaw in Ottawa.
A bylaw banning idling for more than three minutes in Ottawa went into effect on Jan. 1, 2008.
With the aim of reducing pollution from idling cars, a number of cities in Canada — including London, Ont., North Vancouver and Sarnia, Ont. — are thinking about making it tougher for restaurants to build new drive-thrus.
Gordon Taylor, an engineering consultant who has done air-quality studies for Natural Resources Canada, suggested that the restaurant association could be taking another approach to deal with criticism of drive-thrus.
“I think the restaurant association should have some kind of a pro-active campaign to say, ‘Hey, if there’s a big long lineup, consider walking in the door.’ “

Canadian Corporate Greenwash of the Year – Tim Hortons – Nominated for First Place (U.S. owned)

The greatest greenwash site on the web: (The patriotic Canadian branding is also false – Tim Hortons is owned by the TDL group – an American Corporation)

Did you know that

  • Critics of drive-thrus don’t have “any proof”; in fact, they don’t “make sense”
  • Fast foods — and drive-thru access to those fast foods — are “vital” “for the disabled, seniors, and parents with small children”; access to these fast foods is not just a matter of convenience; “many people need drive-thrus”
  • All of “the disabled, seniors, and parents with small children” have cars — as well as money for insurance and gas; and all of “the disabled, seniors, and parents with small children” don’t have disabilities (e.g. blindness) which prevent car-driving; so all of these people have the option of using drive-thrus
  • Drive-thrus are the only way that we can improve accessibility for all of “the disabled, seniors, and parents with small children” — even for disabled people whose mobility is not impaired in any way
  • Cars only make people safer; no one is ever endangered by car driving
  • It’s fine to encourage people to eat and drink while they drive after leaving a drive-thru
  • The health of drive-thru window employees is not important; it’s OK that they inhale fumes from nearby exhaust pipes throughout their shifts
  • It doesn’t matter that all of the employees and customers in establishments with drive-thru windows are exposed to the exhaust fumes that come in through these windows
  • Drive-thrus are not an environmental problem in any way whatsoever; in fact, drive-thrus are an environmental asset
  • People don’t travel to businesses by bicycle, by bus, or by foot; every customer who doesn’t use a drive-thru either will leave their car in a parking lot, or they will leave it idling outside of the building; so without drive-thrus that is what’s bound to happen
  • Tailpipe emissions are the only environmental issue that is relevant here; environmental consequences (e.g. ongoing oil spills) associated with extracting, refining, and shipping the oil used to make gasoline are a separate matter; and the materials (e.g. rubber) needed to manufacture and maintain vehicles (e.g. their tires) are not relevant either; so the extraction, transport, processing, and disposal of these materials also has nothing to do with drive-thrus; and the ecological implications of industrial manufacturing of vehicles and vehicle parts is unrelated as well
  • Concerns about how oil profits often end up in the hands of authoritarian regimes (e.g. in Saudi Arabia) are irrelevant
  • Drive-thrus don’t encourage additional car driving, so “banning drive-thrus won’t reduce the number of overall car trips”; drive-thrus thus have nothing to do with ongoing automobile collisions, or with other problems (e.g. increased obesity) associated with car driving
  • Eat-in establishments are of no value; “quick service restaurants” are ideal; it’s not important that we sit together as a community rather than eating and drinking more privately (e.g. inside vehicles); it doesn’t matter that there are fewer jobs and less tips in “quick service restaurants” with drive-thrus
  • It doesn’t matter that younger people who can’t drive cars on their own have less access to drive-thrus, and to establishments that are more accessible by car; poorer people who can’t afford their own cars — and everyone else who can’t drive on their own — also don’t deserve any consideration
  • “The public” supports drive-thrus; “the public” does not have any concerns about drive-thrus
  • Each name on the petition is actually from a separate person who has “read the facts“; there are no duplicate names on the petition, and no fake names were added to it
  • There is grassroots activism in the “Drive-Thru Truths” campaign — as the protest signs show
  • “The experts” dismiss concerns about drive-thrus and tailpipe emissions; “the experts” all agree on this
  • Tim Hortons and the Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel Association — the people behind these messages — just want to help us all, while contributing to environmental causes; profit-making strategies have nothing to do with their stance on these issues; unlike “special interest groups,” Tim Horton’s and the Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel Association are concerned about the general interests — of “the people,” whose voices and whose empowerment are considered to be very important

Those are the messages that you’ll find at drivethru truth .ca, a pro- drive-thru propaganda site. (Their banner image is at the top of this post; their actual banner is a little larger, however.)
The above points are about what is said on that site, and about what’s not said on that site.

There are additional problems with drive-thrus that I could mention, but I’m just responding to the lobbying on and around that particular drivethru truth web site. In other words, this post is just a response to a particular set of industry lobbyists (and without trying to come up with every possible point that could be raised against them).

I’ve said more about their lobbying in this blog post –
(The above points and such are copied directly from that post.)

Here’s a previous post about the Tuesday, July 15th forum -
There also are comments from locals.

If anyone wants to comment on the drive-thru issue, here’s a place where you can post about it -

The Spin Doctors – A Standard Letter from Industry to Mayor & Councillors – from the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association

The Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association (CRFA) Executive Vice President of Government Affairs continues to target mayors and councillors across our country as this issue continues to build momentum across Canada. They are targeting cities considering anti-idling proposals to ensure drive-thrus continue to be exempt.

The CRFA requests to mayors and councillors that urgent meetings are necessary to discuss the ‘mis-information about drive-through idling’ prior to any first reading of anti-idling proposals that are tabled.

The CRFA refers to a study commissioned by Natural Resources Canada (to Taylor Consulting) in 2003 which concluded that for cars with catalytic converters – (which CFRA states make up the vast majority of cars on the road today) – turning the engine on and off will create the same or slightly higher emissions than idling the vehicle between 10 seconds – and 10 minutes.

The CRFA attaches this study from Taylor Consulting to their requests. (Link to study below)

CRFA then speak of their automotive expert Doug Bethune. They state he has echoed this statement in radio interviews (please see attached) calling an idling law one of “unintended consequences”. They go one to state a peer-reviewed study by air-quality engineering firm, RWDI Air Inc. (commissioned by American owned Tim Hortons | TDL Group) concluded that emission levels for high volume drive-though establishments were less than that of a comparable site without a drive-though. The CRFA states that the report found that the congestion that occurs in the parking lot, together with the start-up emissions and the extra travel distance to get to and from a space, all contribute to produce somewhat higher emissions per vehicle compared to a store that has a drive through. The CFRA then take pleasure in advising the mayors and councillors that the idling portion of the Natural Resources Canada website is being reconstructed to correct ‘some previous factual errors on the idling issue’ that the industry itself has corrected them on. [Incidentally – the Natural Resources Canada Idling site was shut down on May 14th – the day after the drive-thru moratorium issue was discussed on CBC radio with Council of Canadians. We have learned through our sources that it was in fact shut down due to pressure from the industry which leaves us with little question as to who is running our country – sadly - our corporations seemingly now have more power than our own governments.]

The CFRA then states that it is also important to note that drive-throughs have a place in our communities – particularly for parents with young children, people with mobility challenges and elderly patrons. They state that their industry will continue to work co-operatively with municipalities to ensure drive-throughs are designed and function appropriately.

CRFA concludes stating they look forward to speaking to mayors and councillors about these issues as soon as possible.

Understanding the spin:

You can actually find the Taylor Report the industry refers to (they call it ‘the report commissioned by Natural Resources Canada) on the CFRA’s website: NOTE: The study states: “This report reflects the views of the author and not necessarily the views of Natural Resources Canada”.

The conclusion in question is in section 5.2 of this report. The conclusion actually supports the 10 second rule (see the first paragraph).

Section 3.2 talks in more detail about the impact of soak time on engine restart emissions – i.e., there is no difference in start-up and driving emissions between an engine that is started up 10 seconds or 10 minutes after it has been shutdown. Also, the reference to the “505 cycle” means the test cycle that consists of the first 505 seconds (seconds 1 to 505) of the EPA Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule for testing tailpipe emissions from a vehicle – this simulates the first 505 seconds of driving a car.

London city staff state: if every driver in London reduced their amount of idling by 20 per cent per year – or about one minute a day – “1,548,000 litres of fuel, a non-renewable resource, would be saved; 3,760 tonnes of green house gas would not be produced, the same benefit it would take 22,580 trees to duplicate.”

Tim Hortons earlier this year financed what appears to be the first major study on drive-thru idling by RWDI Air Inc., consulting engineers and scientists from Guelph. One of their findings revolves around whether a vehicle idling in a drive-thru queue for five or six minutes pollutes more or less than a vehicle restarted after the five or six minutes it takes for the driver to get his or her coffee inside.

Based on the Tim Horton’s commissioned RWDI information, the emissions from a vehicle starting up after five minutes are equivalent to 2:43 minutes of idling for nitrogent oxides, 1:17 minutes of idling for hydrocarbons and 10 seconds of idling for carbon dioxide.

After examining the RWDI information, the city officials had this comment: “A drive-thru queue of five to six vehicles at a typical Tim Hortons should be processed in around two minutes, which would represent a ‘neutral’ air quality impact scenario compared to parking and walking in for service. Once the drive-thru queue is longer than six vehicles, it would start to have a negative impact on air quality.

But the city report makes one further observation: “For many people, climate change is just as important an issue as local air quality. Given that start up emissions only produce green house gas emissions (carbon dioxide) equivalent to 10 seconds worth of engine idling, the use of a drive-thru will, in most cases, have a greater climate change impact than parking and walking in.”

See our ‘Deconstruction of the RWDI report’ for further information:




The RWDI Report:

The fast food industry touts the RWDI report as proof that drive-thrus are better for the environment but in looking at the report we find the report selective, manipulative and in some respects merely makes the case for why drive-thrus generate a greater burden upon climate change and air quality, even though the report’s conclusions on page 24 (18-490) suggest otherwise.

The focus of the RWDI report seems to be on the morning peak rush hour, using a Tim Horton’s restaurant on Bank Street in Ottawa as the “control” example of emissions from a non drive-through facility.

The RWDI report concludes on page 24 (18-490) that drive-through emissions are lower relative to the non drive-through restaurant. Yes this is true, but only for the one hour that the study focuses upon.

The RWDI report states quite clearly that in a restaurant where there is ample parking the GHG emissions are less than 1/3 for someone parking their vehicle compared to using the drive-through. By extension one has to ask the question what would be the emissions profile during non-peak hours, and what would be the emissions profile at a restaurant that had ample parking. Looking at the report I would call your attention to Appendix D which presents “Emission Calculations by store and by Scenario”

If you compare Appendix D (18-514) item 2.4 “Drive-Through Emissions for the individual stores you will find the emissions 70% higher than in the item 2.5 below “Parking Lot Emissions” listed immediately below. Our conclusion is that this shows that given ample parking non-drive-through facilities are better for our environment.

At restaurants where there is ample parking, the statistics shown in Appendix D on page (18-514) of the RWDI report clearly demonstrate that drive-thrus are a contributor of greater GHGs… By extension, Tim Horton’s should be closing down all of their drive-thru windows where this situation exists. RWDI report can’t have it both ways.

We further argue that the one Tim Hortons without a drive-thru must be excluded. The reason it must be excluded is the probability that the reason for the tremendous traffic congestion has to do with general traffic problems in the area. It is likely a drive-thru request was turned down for this location by city planning. This particular location really needs to be looked at critically. Consider that in all of the ones with drive-thrus and walk-ins the times are most often quite similar. The average time is higher for walk in service but if we look at the distribution in the tables it is clear that most people get in and out in about the same amount of time. It’s just that some walk in people and sit down to consume their purchases within the store. However, in the one location where there is no drive-thru there is no one is getting out fast. This Tim Hortons is clearly massively busy compared to its capacity and cannot be compared to the other ones. It must be excluded from the study. If this specific location was to be excluded; the obvious result would be that walk-ins win on every single measure.

The only legitimate conclusions that could be made from the RWDI report are that:

1) using a drive thru during the morning rush hour with limited / congested parking problems will emit less emissions compared to their control restaurant which does not have a drive thru (this is a parking problem & should be recognized as such)

2) using a drive thru when there is ample parking emits 3x more emissions compared to parking. By extension, during the other 23 hours or 17 hours of operation (assuming that some restaurants are open 24 hours or from 6:00 a.m. until midnight) they should shut down the drive-thru windows.

The Industry’s approach has been appalling. They are “circling the wagons”, in this case shielding themselves behind pregnant women, women with young children, and elderly men with walkers.

We challenge the industry to take responsibility that they are in fact part of a huge emissions problem, and we challenge industry to adopt a less defensive approach that would be part of the solution. The minimum we expect is the industry to start by giving their drive-thru customers the opportunity to pay an extra 10 cents for every purchase that would go into a carbon or environmental fund. We feel this would be a positive first step in education and awareness.

The following is a quote from the Vermont Idle-Free Zone website: Drive-thrus except if driving a hybrid vehicle which seldom idles–should be avoided. By far, what is best for both drivers and all people in the vicinity is to park the vehicle, turn it off and go into the place of business. Besides providing some exercise, this will save fuel, engine wear-and-tear and keep emissions out of the atmosphere.

RWDI Audio: CBC Radio

Jan. 25, 2008

On our show about banning drive thrus, there was discussion about a study that suggests heading to the drive-thru window may cause fewer emissions than parking. Many of you wanted to know more about that study. And so did we. It turns out the study in question was commissioned by TDL the parent company for Tim Horton’s. Mike LePage is the principal scientist with the company that did the study RWDI air.

It’s an engineering consulting firm which specializes in air quality issues. (runs 08:06 | RealAudio)

CBC Video – The Environmental Costs of Drive-thrus 05/28/2007


The environmental cost (Runs 3:05)

Doubt Is Their Product: Scientists Who Spin the Science – An Excerpt

David Michaels is a scientist and former government regulator. During the Clinton Administration, he served as Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety and Health, responsible for protecting the health and safety of the workers, neighboring communities, and the environment surrounding the nation’s nuclear weapons factories. He currently directs the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy at The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services. His most recent book, Doubt is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health explains how many of the scientists who spun science for tobacco have become practitioners in the lucrative world of product defense. Whatever the story- global warming, toxic chemicals, sugar and obesity, secondhand smoke- these scientists generate studies designed to make dangerous exposures appear harmless. The excerpt below is taken from the introduction to Doubt Is Their Product.

Since 1986 every bottle of aspirin sold in the United States has included a label advising parents that consumption by children with viral illnesses greatly increases their risk of developing Reye’s syndrome, a serious illness that often involves sudden damage to the brain or liver. Before that mandatory warning was required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the toll from this disease was substantial: In one year—1980—555 cases were reported, and many others quite likely occurred but went unreported because the syndrome is easily misdiagnosed. One in three diagnosed children died.

Today, less than a handful of Reye’s syndrome cases are reported each year—a public health triumph, surely, but a bittersweet one because a untold number of children died or were disabled while the aspirin manufacturers delayed the FDA’s regulation by arguing that the science establishing the aspirin link was incomplete, uncertain, and unclear. The industry raised seventeen specific ‘‘flaws’’ in the studies and insisted that more reliable ones were needed. The medical community knew of the danger, thanks to an alert issued by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), but parents were kept in the dark. Despite a federal advisory committee’s concurrence with the CDC’s conclusions about the link with aspirin, the industry even issued a public service announcement claiming ‘‘We do know that no medication has been proven to cause Reyes’’ (emphasis in the original). This campaign and the dilatory procedures of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget delayed a public education program for two years and mandatory labels for two more. Only litigation by Public Citizen’s Health Research Group forced the recalcitrant Reagan Administration to act. Thousands of lives have now been saved—but only after hundreds had been lost.

Of course, the aspirin manufacturers did not invent the strategy of preventing or postponing the regulation of hazardous products by questioning the science that reveals the hazards in the first place. I call this strategy ‘‘manufacturing uncertainty’’; individual companies—and entire industries—have been practicing it for decades. Without a doubt, Big Tobacco has manufactured more uncertainty over a longer period and more effectively than any other industry. The title of this book comes from a phrase unwisely committed to paper by a cigarette executive: ‘‘Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy’’ (emphasis added).

There you have it: the proverbial smoking gun. Big Tobacco, left now without a stitch of credibility or public esteem, has finally abandoned its strategy, but it showed the way. The practices it perfected are alive and well and ubiquitous today. We see this growing trend that disingenuously demands proof over precaution in the realm of public health. In field after field, year after year, conclusions that might support regulation are always disputed. Animal data are deemed not relevant, human data not representative, and exposure data not reliable. Whatever the story—global warming, sugar and obesity, secondhand smoke—scientists in what I call the ‘‘product defense industry’’ prepare for the release of unfavorable studies even before the studies are published. Public relations experts feed these for-hire scientists contrarian sound bites that play well with reporters, who are mired in the trap of believing there must be two sides to every story. Maybe there are two sides—and maybe one has been bought and paid for.
* * *

As it happens, I have had the opportunity to witness what is going on at close range. In the Clinton administration, I served as Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health in the Department of Energy (DOE), the chief safety officer for the nation’s nuclear weapons facilities. I ran the process through which we issued a strong new rule to prevent chronic beryllium disease, a debilitating and sometimes fatal lung disease prevalent among nuclear weapons workers. The industry’s hired guns acknowledged that the current exposure standard for beryllium is not protective for employees. Nevertheless, they claimed, it should not be lowered by any amount until we know with certainty what the exact final number should be.

As a worker, how would you like to be on the receiving end of this logic?

Christie Todd Whitman, the first head of the Environmental Protection Agency under the second President Bush, once said, ‘‘The absence of certainty is not an excuse to do nothing.’’ But it is. Quite simply, the regulatory agencies in Washington, D.C., are intimidated and outgunned— and quiescent. While it is true that industry’s uncertainty campaigns exert their influence regardless of the party in power in the nation’s capital, I believe it is fair to say that, in the administration of President George W. Bush, corporate interests successfully infiltrated the federal government from top to bottom and shaped government science policies to their desires as never before. In October 2002 I was the first author of an editorial in Science that alerted the scientific community to the replacement of national experts in pediatric lead poisoning with lead industry consultants on the Pertinent advisory committee. Other such attempts to stack advisory panels with individuals chosen for their commitment to a cause—rather than for their expertise—abound.

Industry has learned that debating the science is much easier and more effective than debating the policy. Take global warming, for example. The vast majority of climate scientists believe there is adequate evidence of global warming to justify immediate intervention to reduce the human contribution. They understand that waiting for absolute certainty is far riskier—and potentially far more expensive—than acting responsibly now to control the causes of climate change. Opponents of action, led by the fossil fuels industry, delayed this policy debate by challenging the science with a classic uncertainty campaign. I need cite only a cynical memo that Republican political consultant Frank Luntz delivered to his clients in early 2003. In ‘‘Winning the Global Warming Debate,’’ Luntz wrote the following: ‘‘Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate. . . . The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science’’ (emphasis in original).

Sound familiar? In reality, there is a great deal of consensus among climate scientists about climate change, but Luntz understood that his clients can oppose (and delay) regulation without being branded as antienvironmental by simply manufacturing uncertainty.

SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Doubt Is Their Product: An Excerpt”, url: “” });ShareThis

Deconstructing the RWDI Report – Making Sense out of Denialism




Deconstructing the Tim Horton’s RWDI Study

The RWDI study has been publicized as proof that eliminating drive-thrus would provide no improvement for the environment. This conclusion can be found in the summary of conclusions on page 24. The real truth however can be found in Appendix D, which shows the emissions by store and by scenario.

The study looked at four Tim Horton locations.

1. Hamilton – Concession Street (has a drive through)

2. Ottawa – Bank Street and Huron Road (has a drive through)

3. Mississauga – Dundas Street (has a drive through)

4. Ottawa – 1263 Bank Street (has no drive through)

Appendix D notes that at the 4th facility with no drive through the parking lot was congested with 124 cars waiting for parking spots. It also notes that 262 vehicles were observed idling unattended at this location adding to emissions.

Looking at CO2 as a representative pollutant emission, here is how the four locations looked for non-peak hours.


# of Vehicles per hour

Walk-in (emissions)

Drive Through (emissions)

1. (Hamilton)

2. (Ottawa)

3. (Mississauga)

4. (Ottawa)

141 (DT)


165 (DT)


106 (DT)



56.8 (g/vehicle)

57.2 (g/vehicle)

57.3 (g/vehicle)

156.7 (g/vehicle)

172.8 (g/vehicle)

131.2 (g/vehicle)

177.3 (g/vehicle)

Looking at CO2 as a representative pollutant emission, here is how the four locations looked for the peak hour.


Walk-in (emissions)

Drive Through (emissions)

1. (Hamilton)

2. (Ottawa)

3. (Mississauga)

4. (Ottawa)

5,340 (grams per peak hour)

5,316 (grams per peak hour)

4,180 (grams per peak hour)

17,085 (grams per peak hour)

24,363 (grams per peak hour)

21,647 (grams per peak hour)

18,792 (grams per peak hour)

Now I have only presented CO2 emissions here but they are representative of other emissions presented in the study. You don’t have to be a scientist to see that the emissions from not using a drive-through significantly are lower.

Jim Mahon

London and District Labour Council

Environment Committee Chair

RWDI | Briefing Notes

Attached is the RWDI briefing notes commissioned by the U.S. owned TDL group (Tim Hortons).


RWDI Report | Final | Full Version

Attached is the full RWDI report commissioned by the U.S. owned TDL group (Tim Hortons).

58 pages.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.